A new Lincoln book, The Broken Constitution

[David Lockmiller]

I sent the following message this morning through the Amanpoor website message system:

Constitutional Law Professor Feldman of Harvard University and author of a new Lincoln book, The Broken Constitution, made the argument on November 8 on the Amanpour & Company show, that President Lincoln created his own U. S. Constitution on several occasions. His specious argument is meant to sell books by impugning the character and reputation of President Lincoln in quite similar manner to that of Nikole Hannah-Jones. The interviewer lacked superior Lincoln knowledge, only referencing Lincoln material from the book, and thereby, was unquestioning of the many false and distorted “Lincoln” facts made by Professor Feldman in his lengthy argument to this effect.

I think that it is important that all of Professor Feldman’s “Lincoln” misrepresentations be challenged by someone of at least equal Lincoln scholarship footing. I was going to make a list of the many historical factual deficiencies to counter the false statements of historical “Lincoln” fact made by Professor Feldman, one by one.

One statement that particularly irked me on the Amanpour telecast was the Professor’s statement regarding President Lincoln’s habeas corpus suspension. Professor Feldman argued that only Congress had this constitutional authority. This statement is wrong.

President Lincoln explained his reasoning in his message to the extra session of Congress on July 4, 1861:

Now, it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is vested with this power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.

Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863 and it reads in pertinent part: “[D]uring the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof.”


This statement should be enough to get the attention of any honest person.

[Rob Wick]

David,

You almost had me in your corner on this book until you brought out the nonsense about the 'character and reputation of President Lincoln." Writing such a phrase paints you as amateurish. When I was an editor, letters like yours went straight into the trash, as I'm sure yours did.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(11-10-2021 09:16 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

You almost had me in your corner on this book until you brought out the nonsense about the 'character and reputation of President Lincoln." Writing such a phrase paints you as amateurish. When I was an editor, letters like yours went straight into the trash, as I'm sure yours did.

Best
Rob

If I had you in my corner, I would realize that I am probably in the wrong place.

[Gene C]

I appreciate David's comments.
While it was unlikely I was going to purchase the book he is commenting on, it is now even more unlikely.
I found the comment that you didn't care for clearly stated what David felt was the authors objective and manner of presenting the premise of his book.

Rob, you are probably right that David's letter may end up in the trash. Critical assessments frequently do.
But at least you read it, or parts of it, and made a decision regarding it.
Back when I was in school and wrote a paper, if the teacher was critical of only one phrase, I considered that a success.

[Rob Wick]

Gene,

For a discussion forum like this where everyone approaches things with a varied background and unequal training (mind you, not better or worse, but simply different) David's comment was fine and generally expected. However, to tell an author who has spent time and money that his book isn't worth reading because it attacks the "character and reputation" of Lincoln is nonsense. The arguments about Habeas Corpus or Lincoln's legal ability to wage war to force the South back into the Union are both legitimate reasons not to buy the book, and I would argue they are not the reason David's letter will be trashed. It's because he feels a necessity to protect someone who doesn't need protection.
Best
Rob

[Gene C]

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

[David Lockmiller]

(11-11-2021 01:39 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  The arguments about Habeas Corpus or Lincoln's legal ability to wage war to force the South back into the Union are both legitimate reasons not to buy the book, and I would argue they are not the reason David's letter will be trashed. It's because he feels a necessity to protect someone who doesn't need protection.
Best
Rob

I did not mention in my post anything about "forc[ing] the South back into the Union" as did you in your post, Rob. And, the Amanpoor interviewer did not contradict the author's book sales pitch on this subject or any other President Lincoln Civil War action.

How would an unknowledgeble TV viewer and listener know that this assertion is NOT a legitimate reason to buy the book if someone in the here and now was not willing to defend President Lincoln's specific constitutional actions?

[Rob Wick]

I never said you mentioned it, David. It was mentioned in the New York Times article you referred to earlier, which you inexplicably left out of your post. Most of the interviews anyone does for a book is not anything more than a sales pitch that the publisher sets up. The real criticism comes from book reviews.

The book has a limited appeal. The "average: reader isn't going to pick it up. The buyer of the book will be someone who knows something about Lincoln and the Constitution. As to your other point, Lincoln doesn't need to be "defended."

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(11-12-2021 01:55 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  The real criticism comes from book reviews. . . As to your other point, Lincoln doesn't need to be "defended."

Best
Rob

How is any worthwhile book review by a Lincoln scholar critical of Professor Feldman's book not include a "defense" of the constitutionally-permitted actions taken by President Lincoln during the Civil War to which this Harvard Law School Constitutional Law Professor has raised specific constitutional objections?

In case you do not know, Rob, Harvard Law School is considered to be one of the top one hundred law schools in the country.

[Rob Wick]

Define "worthwhile."

You don't seem to understand, David, that I agree with you on the real issues surrounding Feldman's book. Where we differ is in your belief that any criticism of Lincoln is akin to criticizing God, which is nothing but inane hero worship.

You also seem to have some kind of inferiority complex where Harvard and other schools are concerned. One of the smartest lawyers I know never went to college.

Best
Rob

[Steve]

David, Rob, and Gene -

This might be a good article to read on the subject of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262986...w=fulltext

[David Lockmiller]

(11-12-2021 03:16 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Define "worthwhile."

You don't seem to understand, David, that I agree with you on the real issues surrounding Feldman's book. Where we differ is in your belief that any criticism of Lincoln is akin to criticizing God, which is nothing but inane hero worship.

You also seem to have some kind of inferiority complex where Harvard and other schools are concerned. One of the smartest lawyers I know never went to college.

Best
Rob

Dictionary.com defines "worthwhile," succinctly and accurately: "such as to repay one's time, attention, interest, work, trouble, etc." Dictionary.com also provides the following appropriate example of the word's use: "a worthwhile book."

And, until you informed me, I did not know that it was my "belief that any criticism of Lincoln is akin to criticizing God."

The question that I have for you is: "How did you know, what I did not know myself?"

[Rob Wick]

Worthwhile is subjective here. What you consider to be worthwhile may not apply to others.

As for your question, anyone who reads even one of your posts could figure it out.

Best
Rob

[Rob Wick]

This is a worthwhile critique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/books...ution.html

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(11-13-2021 06:39 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  As for your question, anyone who reads even one of your posts could figure it out.

Best
Rob

My question was: ""How did you know [that it is my] belief that any criticism of Lincoln is akin to criticizing God?"

I truly did not know that "anyone who reads even one of [my] posts could figure it out."

This truly is a revelation, Preacher.

Revelation means "a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way."

I always thought that I had made adequate arguments in support of my opinions that specific criticisms of President Lincoln were unfair and unjust.

For example, my initial post on this thread reads as follows:

One statement that particularly irked me on the Amanpour telecast was the Professor’s statement regarding President Lincoln’s habeas corpus suspension. Professor Feldman argued that only Congress had this constitutional authority. This statement is wrong.

President Lincoln explained his reasoning in his message to the extra session of Congress on July 4, 1861:

Now, it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is vested with this power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.

Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863 and it reads in pertinent part: “[D]uring the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States or any part thereof.”


This statement should be enough to get the attention of any honest person.

---

(11-14-2021 06:09 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  This is a worthwhile critique.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/books...ution.html

Best
Rob

Two of the last three sentences of this critique by esteemed American History Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz read as follows:

“The Broken Constitution” displays its author’s usual brilliance and boldness in his contrarianism, and a passionate engagement with the past. What it lacks is historical soundness.

You subjectively describe Professor Wilentz's work as a "worthwhile critique."

Is "historical soundness" important to you?